Posts About Immigration

New legislation affirms the importance of middle-skill pathways and immigrant workforce to our economy

The House of Representatives yesterday voted 237-187 to pass H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. Those voting for the bill included 230 Democrats and seven Republicans. It was the first time that the full House had voted on a bill to address the status of immigrant Dreamers since 2010. The bill was supported by an exceptionally broad array of organizations, including the AFL-CIO and the US Chamber of Commerce, which designated it a key vote.

Lead sponsors on the bill were Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), and Nydia Velázquez (D-NY). The legislation affirms the crucial role immigrant workers play in the US economy -- where they represent 1 in 6 American workers overall -- and the vital importance of middle-skill jobs.

The Dream and Promise Act addresses barriers faced by a key subset of approximately 2.7 million immigrants. It provides a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants, and ensures a stable future for adult immigrants who have been living and working under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Legislation Reflects Voters’ Priorities

The legislation reflects National Skills Coalition’s longstanding advocacy for a middle-skills pathway for immigrant Dreamers and sends an important message: the American economy depends on working people and immigrants with middle-skill credentials, not just those with college degrees.

The role of middle-skill credentials in the Dream Act

In order for immigrant Dreamers to attain permanent legal status under this bill, they would need to meet a host of requirements in different areas. One option for meeting the bill’s educational requirements is to earn a degree from a postsecondary institution (including vocational and proprietary schools), orcomplete 2 years towards a bachelor’s degree, orearn a certificate or credential from an area postsecondary CTE school.

Read more about the bill’s requirements in our March 26 blog post on the introduction of the Dream and Promise Act. (Please note that some provisions originally proposed in the bill, such as the repeal of a 1996 provision regarding states' ability to provide in-state tuition to Dreamers, were not included in the final legislation.)

Next steps in Congress: What advocates can do

While HR 6 has passed the House, its prospects in the Senate are much more uncertain, and President Trump has already threatened to veto it.

However, a Dreamer bill in the Senate does have bipartisan support, with Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) serving as lead sponsors of the Dream Act of 2019, S. 874. While the bill is somewhat different from the House bill, it does include NSC’s recommended middle-skills pathway to citizenship.

Skills advocates should urge their Senators to take action on this legislation. NSC resources available for advocacy include our 50-state fact sheets about the demand for middle skill workers in each state.

This is a joint blog post by members of the Immigration and Federal Skills Policy workgroup, a set of national organizations that meet monthly in Washington, DC, to address workforce development and adult education policy issues pertaining to immigrants. National Skills Coalition, National Immigration Forum, Migration Policy Institute and the National Immigration Law Center are co-conveners of the workgroup.

Skills advocates have an upcoming opportunity to ensure that their states’ postsecondary Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs are responsive to immigrant constituents.

Last year, Congress reauthorized landmark legislation governing CTE programs. The 2018 law is called the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, and is colloquially known as Perkins V.

As states begin to gear up for the planning process required by the new law, skills advocates have a chance to speak up for effective policies and strategies that can serve immigrant adults and other CTE learners. These strategies can be incorporated into the Perkins state plans that are required to be submitted to the federal government in spring 2020.

(Want to know how your state can combine its Perkins and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act planning processes? Check out this recent guide from National Skills Coalition and Advance CTE.)

Key points to keep in mind for advocacy

Perkins is not just about high school students. Fully 40 percent of Perkins funding nationwide supports postsecondary programs. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average age of CTE students in postsecondary programs is 26.3 years old.* State Perkins plans should specifically describe on-ramps for adult learners into CTE programs, to make clear that not all postsecondary participants would be coming directly from high school. Having well-designed on-ramps is especially important for immigrants, who are often working adults eager to access upskilling opportunities. States can capitalize on the fact that the new Perkins law adopts the definition of career pathways already used by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to help construct CTE pathways that provide multiple entry and exit points for individuals.

People of color are especially likely to be served by Perkins-funded programs. Approximately 13.2 percent of postsecondary CTE students are African American and 21.2 percent are Hispanic. These numbers are higher than their representation in the overall US adult population (12.3 percent African American and 18.1 percent Hispanic). While the reasons behind this over-representation are complex, the bottom line is that Perkins-funded programs should be thinking specifically about how to serve students of color, including those who are immigrants. (The nonprofit National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity has a wealth of resources to assist in this process.)

Perkins funding goes to institutions rather than individuals. Unlike WIOA, Perkins funding is not linked to individual jobseekers in the form of a training voucher or a seat in an English language class. Rather, Perkins serves individuals, including immigrants, through its support of the institutions they attend. While Perkins-funded programs are required to collect some data on the students they serve, the “special populations” category does not include nativity. Therefore, there is no direct measure of how many immigrants are served by Perkins-funded programs. However, English learners (ELs) are included in special populations reporting, and about 87 percent of all ELs nationwide are immigrants.

Creative use of Perkins funding can help improve opportunities for immigrants and US-born students alike. Some localities have used even modest amounts of Perkins funding to improve program offerings and services to immigrants and English learners. Often, these efforts can support US-born students at the same time. For example:

The Socorro Independent School District in El Paso, Texas, blends Perkins and WIOA resources to support innovative Integrated Education and Training programs in seven occupations. Given the local community’s demographics, the program serves primarily Latino participants, including immigrants and English learners.

Westchester Community College in New York has used Perkins funding to develop curriculum for a noncredit healthcare program, which is part of the college’s career pathway to several credit-bearing healthcare programs. Given the college’s location in the suburban New York City area, these programs serve a diverse range of students, including immigrants as well as those born in the United States.

Miami Dade College in Florida has used Perkins funding to support a navigator position – a type of advisor who can help immigrant adults who come to the US with a credential from their home country, and want to brush up on their skills in a community college program. Participants come from a wide range of backgrounds, including Cuban and Haitian immigrants among many others.

Perkins funding can also help skilled immigrants strengthen the CTE teacher workforce. The CTE field is experiencing dramatic shortages of teachers in almost all subjects, even as the demand for programs is expanding and student populations become more diverse. The Perkins Act requires states to indicate in their plans how local districts and other partners will recruit and prepare teachers and other CTE staff, including equipping them to work with special populations. Immigrants who have degrees and experience from abroad are an untapped resource that is uniquely well-equipped to help states meet the demand for CTE teachers with relevant industry experience and the capacity to work with a diverse range of learners. In addition, Perkins does provide a potential way to support such non-traditional teacher pipelines: funding for creative local teacher training initiatives through its Innovation and Modernization grant program.

Need a Perkins Act 101?

If you are new to the CTE world, it may be helpful to get a more general overview of how this legislation works. Perkins funds CTE services, previously known as vocational education. CTE programs exist at the secondary (high school) and postsecondary (typically community college) level.

A total of $1.2 billion in Perkins funding is distributed by the US Department of Education each year. Unlike WIOA and other workforce funding, this money does not fund specific“slots” for individual students. Rather, it goes to school districts, higher education institutions, and other entities to support costs such as laboratories and classroom equipment, training materials, and curriculum development.

Some Perkins-funded classes are part of “programs of study” that include up to two years of study at the high school level followed by up to two years of postsecondary study.

Legislation recently introduced in Congress marks a significant step toward recognizing the role that immigrant workers play in the US economy, and the vital importance of middle-skill jobs. The Dream and Promise Act of 2019 would provide a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants, and ensure a stable future for adult immigrants who have been living and working under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The bill would also allow more immigrants to access federal student financial aid.

The new bill reflects National Skills Coalition’s longstanding advocacy for a middle-skills pathway for immigrant Dreamers and sends an important message: the American economy depends on working people and immigrants with middle-skill credentials, not just those with college degrees. This provision has broad-based support; in February, nearly 500 NSC members representing education, workforce, business, and other stakeholders came to Washington to advocate for the proposal in Congress as part of our Skills for Good Jobs 2019 agenda.

The broader American public also embraces the idea of having a variety of pathways to good jobs: A recent NSC poll shows overwhelming support for investments in skills, with more than 80 percent of voters endorsing policies that allow workers to pursue technical training, apprenticeships, shorter-term credentials, and other skill-building opportunities.

Because immigrants comprise approximately 1 in 6 American workers, or roughly 28 million adults in the US labor force, it is important for federal skills policies to address their specific assets and barriers. The Dream and Promise Act would address barriers faced by a key subset of immigrant workers, totaling an estimated 2.7 million people.

More about the legislation

The Dream and Promise Act of 2019 was announced at a March 12 press conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) along with lead sponsors Representatives Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA). More than 200 Democrats are co-sponsoring the bill.

The legislation, formally known as H.R. 6, would provide a way for two groups of immigrants to obtain permanent legal status and eventual US citizenship: Those who currently have Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, known as Dreamers. Neither group is generally eligible for permanent status under current immigration laws, unless they meet existing criteria for adjustment of status. There are currently 2.3 million Dreamers in the U.S. (which includes Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients) and 300,000 people with TPS status.

How do middle skill credentials fit into the bill?

The requirements for Dreamers to attain permanent legal status under this bill are different from the requirements for TPS holders, primarily because the TPS holders are more likely to be adults who have been in the labor force for more than a decade.

Under the proposed legislation, Dreamers would need to meet a host of requirements at each stage of this process:

Step 1:Apply for an initial conditional permanent resident status. Dreamers would need to show that they have earned a high school diploma or equivalent; or attained a recognized postsecondary credential as defined in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA); or be currently enrolled in an education program that will allow them to earn a high school diploma or equivalent, certificate or credential from an area career and technical education (CTE) secondary school, or a recognized postsecondary credential.

Step 2: Apply for removal of the “conditional” part of their status to move into full legal permanent resident (LPR) status. Dreamers would need to demonstrate that they had achieved one of three milestones related to educational attainment, work experience, or military service. For the educational attainment track, Dreamers would need to show that they had earned a degree from a postsecondary institution (including vocational and proprietary schools), or completed 2 years towards a bachelor’s degree, or earned a certificate or credential from an area postsecondary CTE school.

Step 3: Follow already-established legal pathways to adjust from LPR status to full US citizenship.

As noted above, the middle skills pathway included in Step 2 reflects a longstanding NSC policy recommendation. Earlier versions of the DREAM Act, which has been introduced in Congress repeatedly over the past two decades, also included the pathway.

How would the bill support upskilling?

The legislation would allow Dreamers with conditional permanent resident status to become eligible for federal student financial aid. Currently, a person must have full LPR status in order to access such aid. In addition, the bill would repeal a 1996 provision that punishes states for allowing undocumented individuals to pay in-state tuition rates. More than 20 states have implemented such “tuition equity” policies.

Finally, the legislation would authorize US Citizenship and Immigration Services to implement a competitive grant program for nonprofits that can aid individuals in meeting the requirements of the bill. Organizations would be permitted to use funding for English language classes, preparation for high school equivalency exams, and other purposes. The legislation does not specify a dollar amount for these grants, but would authorize funding for a 10-year period following passage of the legislation.

Next steps in Congress: What advocates can do

The newly introduced legislation is expected to proceed through regular order in Congress. That means that the committee overseeing the bill – the House Judiciary Committee – will schedule a markup later this spring.

It is anticipated that the full House of Representatives will vote on the bill later this year, though its prospects in the Senate are very uncertain. Skills advocates can use this time to educate their Members of Congress about the demand for middle skill workers in each state and the role that Dreamers and TPS holders can play in meeting that demand.

This week, the US Department of Homeland Security proposed a rule that would make it significantly harder for many immigrants who are here legally to stay in the country. Under this new "public charge" rule, immigration officials could deny green cards or visa changes for individuals who get any of a number of public benefits or are deemed likely to receive benefits in the future.

NSC opposes this rule, which would hurt our nation's efforts to build a skilled workforce. With record low unemployment, businesses are struggling to fill open positions, particularly for middle-skill jobs. Immigrants, who account for one in six U.S. workers, are essential to closing this skill gap. But the proposed rule would undercut immigrants’ ability to access training for middle-skill jobs.

Although the new rule does not include education and workforce programs in the list of public benefits, it's expected to have a chilling effect as immigrants withdraw from a wide array of publicly funded programs, from community college to adult education, out of confusion and fear. In addition, immigrants in job training programs who rely on key public benefits like SNAP or Medicaid will have to choose between dropping out of benefits programs that provide crucially needed support, or staying in and potentially jeopardizing their immigration status. The new rule would also create challenges for community colleges and other adult education and workforce development providers that would have to quickly build capacity to accurately advise immigrants about this complicated new rule.

To learn more about the proposed rule, read NSC's analysis below and register for our upcoming October 24 webinar. NSC will also provide template comments next week that organizations may use as a basis for submitting their own comments by December 10, 2018.

NSC’s analysis of this complex, 450-page proposal focuses specifically on issues relevant to skills advocates. For broader analysis, we recommend materials from the National Immigration Law Center and its partners in the Protecting Immigrant Families campaign.

What is the public charge?

Public charge is the standard by which individuals can be denied permanent resident (green card) status or otherwise forbidden from extending or changing their visas if they are determined to be dependent on the government for support, or likely to be dependent in the future. The public charge is a totality of circumstances test, in which federal officials weigh the positive and negative factors in an individual immigrant’s application and determine whether they are at risk of becoming a public charge. The current public charge policy has been in place for decades, and was most recently affirmed in 1999 policy guidance from the federal government.

Relatively few immigrants are currently eligible for cash assistance or related public benefits, in part due to the 1996 welfare-reform law. But the new proposal would also require federal officials to predict whether the immigrant might receive benefits in the future. Given that immigrants who are granted green cards are then eligible to apply for US citizenship, and that US citizens are eligible for a wide range of public benefits, the rule would have sweeping implications. Ultimately, the proposed changes would affect millions of legally authorized immigrants and prospective immigrants.

Understanding the major changes proposed by the administration

DHS is proposing to make significant changes to the existing public charge policy. Among the key changes:

1. More people would be subject to the public charge test. Right now, individuals are subject to the public charge determination when applying for lawful permanent resident (“green card”) status, or when existing green card holders are being readmitted to the US after more than six months outside the country. DHS is now proposing that people would be subject to the public charge test in those cases, and that individuals face a similar test when they apply for or extend any one of a long list of nonimmigrant visas. This also means that the same person might be subject to the public charge test on several occasions, as it is very common for individuals to extend or change their status repeatedly. For example, someone might arrive in the US on a student visa, then later change to an employment visa, and eventually become a permanent resident.

2. More kinds of benefits would be counted as negative factors in the public charge test. Under current policy, only two types of public benefits usage count against immigrants: receiving cash assistance (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Insurance), or receiving long-term institutional care at public expense. DHS is proposing that this list be significantly expanded to include:

DHS is also asking for public comments about whether Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits should be counted as a negative factor. If included, this would consider whether the immigrant applicant had received CHIP him- or herself, not whether their children had done so.

3. The process of calculating public benefits usage would become much more complicated. DHS’s proposal divides the above list into monetizable and non-monetizable benefits – that is, those to which DHS can easily assign a monetary value and those to which it cannot. For any individual immigrant, receiving monetizable benefits that total more than 15 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a household of one (about $1800) would count as a negative factor in the public charge totality of circumstances test. (This is a substantial change from current guidance, which examines whether a person is receiving cash benefits that form 51 percent or more of their income.)

Similarly, receiving non-monetizable benefits that last for more than 12 out of the preceding 36 months would also count as a negative factor. Additional calculations would apply if an individual was receiving both monetizable and non-monetizable benefits or more than one non-monetizable benefit in a given month.

(Benefits received by family members of the immigrant applicant would not count. However, the size of an immigrant’s household – including people who may not be physically living with but are financially dependent on the immigrant – would still influence many of the calculations for the public charge test.)

4. Factors to be considered in the totality of circumstances assessment would be further codified. While the general list of factors to be considered in the totality of circumstances test is already codified in statute, DHS is proposing to flesh out these factors with substantially more detailed considerations, including a brand-new proposal to consider an immigrant’s credit history and credit score. The proposed considerations would include but not be limited to:

Age (between 18 and 61 would be a positive factor; below age 18 or age 62 and over would be a negative factor)

Health (a negative factor would be having a health condition that is likely to interfere with the person’s ability to care for him- or herself, to attend school or work or that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or institutionalization in the future)

Family status (i.e., household size)

Assets, resources, and financial status (having income below 125 percent of Federal Poverty Guidelines is a negative factor; income above 250 percent of FPG is a heavily weighted positive factor; other considerations include the immigrant applicant’s credit history and credit score; whether they have applied for or received a public benefit; received a fee waiver when applying for an immigration document, and more)

Education and skills (considerations include recent history of employment; credential attainment at HS diploma or higher level, occupational licensure, English skills, other language skills)

Affidavit of support from a person who is sponsoring the immigrant (if required to be filed)

5. The ripple effect of the new rules would be felt far beyond the immigrants who are personally subject to the public charge test. For example, an individual already living in the US who is applying for a green card may have a US citizen spouse; if federal officials deny the green card application because the applicant is at risk of becoming a public charge, the couple may be faced with a difficult decision about whether they can continue their lives together in the United States, or must move abroad or be separated.

6. A new “public charge bond” process would be implemented to allow individuals to override their negative public charge determination. DHS is proposing a complex new process to allow individuals who are at risk of becoming a public charge to purchase a bond that will enable them to be admitted to the United States. The minimum cost of the bond would be $10,000 plus fees; the intent would be to provide a mechanism for the US government to be reimbursed if the immigrant goes on to use public benefits in the future. Much remains unknown about the bond process, but its existence would add an additional layer of potential financial pressure for immigrant applicants.

Benefits that would NOT count against immigrants

Under the DHS proposal, some public benefits would not be counted against immigrants in the public charge test. These include:

Social Security retirement benefits

General Medicare benefits (as opposed to the Part D subsidies described above)

Any exclusively local, state, or tribal public benefit that is not cash assistance for income maintenance, institutionalization for long-term care at government expense, or another public benefit program not specifically listed in the regulation

Benefits used by persons other than the applicant, including benefits used by their children

Individuals exempt from the public charge test

Some categories of immigrants are not subject to the public charge test.

Active duty and reserve US military service members and their families

Refugees, people who have been granted asylum, individuals receiving U visas for crime victims or T visas for trafficking victims

Select other categories of vulnerable individuals

Family members of the immigrant applicant (unless and until they make their own applications for green-card status, visa extensions, or changes of status)

In addition, individuals are not subject to a public charge test when they apply for US citizenship.

Implications for skills advocates

The biggest concern: A chilling effect far beyond the scope of the rule itself. The new proposal is expected to have a significant chilling effect on immigrant participation in publicly funded adult education and workforce programs. Even though the public charge proposal does not apply to some categories of immigrants (such as refugees), and even though the proposal does not include education and workforce programs, people are nevertheless expected to withdraw from a wide array of publicly programs out of fear and confusion. There is strong evidence that this chilling effect is already occurring. Given the complexity of the new proposal, skills advocates may find it difficult to give a blanket reassurance to worried adult learners and jobseekers, and may see dips in enrollment, participation, and completion.

New rule will create difficult choices for adult learners and jobseekers. While education and training programs themselves are not included in the list of public benefits that would count against immigrant applicants, many participants in training programs depend on other benefits that would be counted against them -- such as SNAP or Medicaid -- to be able to persist and complete their education. As a result, adult learners and jobseekers will be faced with the difficult decision of whether to dis-enroll from health and nutrition programs and jeopardize their ability to complete their training, or to stay enrolled in the programs and potentially jeopardize their immigration status.

End of “bright line” standard will greatly increase demands on service providers.The new proposal would remove a clear, bright-line standard for when an immigrant may be considered a public charge, and replace it with a highly complex, multi-faceted and subjective test. This increased complexity will make it difficult for education and workforce providers to provide straightforward guidance to frontline staff about how to advise participants on whether using a public benefit may jeopardize their immigration status. Higher education institutions, nonprofit organizations, and state and local agencies will also face the challenge of updating enrollment forms, software programs, and other documentation that currently provides blanket reassurance to participants that enrolling in publicly funded programs will not jeopardize their immigration status, and substituting a much more nuanced and complicated disclaimer.

Increased confusion about braided funding for workforce and education programs. The public charge test pertains to benefits received by individuals. Funds that are received by institutions – such as community colleges that blend TANF or SNAP dollars with other funds to support an educational program – would not be counted against immigrant participants in those programs. However, the uncertainty created by the new regulations may affect education and workforce program administrators and managers as they seek to clarify the implications of the proposal for their institutions and participants.

National Skills Coalition is extremely concerned about the ripple effects of these proposed changes on education and workforce goals. We urge skills advocates to submit public comments to DHS in advance of the December 10 deadline. Template comments from NSC will be available early next week.

National Skills Coalition Director of Upskilling Policy Amanda Bergson-Shilcock recently traveled to Boise, ID, and Salt Lake City, UT for skills policy events with stakeholders in both cities. The focus: How immigrant advocates can collaborate with adult education and workforce officials to ensure that skills policies provide effective career pathways for workers at all skill levels.

Immigrant populations have more than doubled in both Idaho and Utah in recent years, demonstrating the growing role that immigrant workers can play in helping the states respond to local industries’ talent needs. The issue is of particular importance given the very low unemployment rates in both states.

Two new fact sheets were released in conjunction with the events. Both are part of NSC’s ongoing series on immigrants and middle-skill jobs:

Idaho: Connecting the Dots between Refugee Youth and State Postsecondary Goals

Idaho is home to approximately 98,000 immigrants, who comprise almost 6 percent of state residents. The state has recently set a goal for postsecondary attainment, aiming to increase the percentage of Idaho residents ages 25-34 with a college degree or certificate to 60 percent by 2025. Ensuring that state workforce and education policies are inclusive of immigrant and refugee youth will be important in helping the state meet its ambitious attainment goal.

In Boise, Amanda led two workshops hosted by the nonprofit Neighbors United. The first focused on career pathways for refugee and immigrant jobseekers. The second examined education and workforce issues facing refugee and immigrant young adults in particular. Stakeholders at both workshops included state officials, higher education partners, nonprofit service providers, and refugee youth themselves.

Utah: A Variety of New Efforts to Boost Skills and Credential Attainment

Immigrants and refugees represent approximately 8 percent of Utah’s population, or 252,000 people. Immigrants in the state are dramatically more likely to be of working age: a full 85 percent are between the ages of 18-64, compared to just 57 percent of native-born residents. Utah immigrants also have a substantially higher labor force participation rate: 71 percent of adult immigrants are in the labor force, compared to 67 percent of native-born adults.

Utah has also established an aspirational goal for postsecondary attainment: By 2020, the state aims to increase the percentage of Utahns between 25-64 years old with a postsecondary degree to 66 percent. Given the relative youth of the state’s foreign-born population, investing in the skills of immigrants and refugees will be an important element of helping the state reach its goal. (Utah is also one of three states selected to participate in a new Task Force on Closing Postsecondary Attainment Gaps, led by the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education.)

In Salt Lake City, Amanda led two discussions in collaboration with the nonprofit One Refugee. The first focused on policies and programs that support career pathways for young adult refugees and immigrants. The second explored strategies for measuring refugee integration using education and workforce data.

Separately, Amanda also met with Utah state legislators to brief them on occupational licensing and career pathway issues for immigrants and refugees in the state. Utah is participating in a national initiative on occupational licensing led by the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, and Council of State Governments.

In addition, both Salt Lake City and Boise, along with partners in Twin Falls, ID, were selected last year to participate in the Skilled Immigrant Integration Program (SIIP), a national technical assistance initiative led by the nonprofit WES Global Talent Bridge. National Skills Coalition served as a technical assistance provider for the SIIP project, and Amanda’s recent trip was conducted as part of the SIIP project.

The report gives advocates practical examples of how state and local officials have invested in immigrant workers’ skills through programs and policies to date, and offers policy recommendations for how advocates can further advance immigrant workforce issues in their own communities. The report is relevant both for states and localities that have immigrant affairs offices, and those that do not.

Six states and 30 cities now have immigrant affairs offices, while more than 90 communities have launched “welcoming” initiatives, some of which are housed within municipal government. Skills issues are a notable and growing focus for many of these offices, both in response to constituent requests (e.g., for more English classes) and as a result of the overall direction and agenda set by the governor or mayor when establishing the office. Similarly, workforce issues are also on the radar screen for many local welcoming initiatives.

At the Intersection of Immigration and Skills Policy includes select examples of policies advanced by immigrant affairs offices to support the education and workforce goals of state residents, and provides recommendations for those offices to further expand their efforts.

The report also emphasizes the importance of ensuring that state policymakers capitalize on immigrant affairs offices’ expertise as they design and meet overall workforce goals, such as the postsecondary attainment goals that 40 states have established. (National Skills Coalition previously published 10 state-specific fact sheets on the importance of investing in immigrant skill-building to meet the demand for middle-skill workers and help states meet their credential attainment goals. Links to each are available on the immigration page of NSC’s website.)

Among the recommendations included in the At the Intersection report:

For established offices of immigrant affairs: 1) designing formal mechanisms for immigrant-affairs offices to participate in workforce and education policy decision making; 2) exploring how non-skills issues can be a gateway to foster connections with other public agencies; 3) capitalizing on the convening power of public agencies; and more.

For newly created offices of immigrant affairs: 1) Consider housing the office within a labor, education, or economic development agency; 2) build inclusion of US-born community members in from the beginning; 3) rather than fighting for a programmatic budget, fight for a seat at the table and ability to be a creative policy entrepreneur; and more.

For workforce and education agencies: 1) “Cross-fertilize” business leaders’ input on immigration and skills policy goals; 2) incorporate an immigrant lens into state and local workforce data policy; 3) ensure that immigrant-owned businesses are specifically included in education and workforce policy efforts; and more.

View the complete recommendations and an array of examples from Maryland to Michigan and beyond in the full At the Intersection of Immigration and Skills Policy report.

Both publications focus on how workforce agencies – including local workforce boards, MichiganWorks! American Job Centers, and other stakeholders – should determine immigrant and refugee eligibility for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Title I services.

Under the WIOA statute, immigrants who are authorized to work legally in the United States are eligible to access Title I services, provided they meet other standard eligibility criteria.

Both publications link to the underlying federal legislation, policy guidance, and regulations that dictate WIOA eligibility requirements, as well as the accompanying state guidance from Michigan’s TIA.

Because states are not required to collect data on the nativity of WIOA participants, there is no available information on how many immigrants are currently served under Title I. However, there is data on how many participants have limited English proficiency. National data shows that only 1.5 percent of participants in Title I intensive training services are limited English proficient. In comparison, a full 10 percent of the US workforce has limited English skills.

Michigan was also one of just eight sites selected to participate in the Skilled Immigrant Integration Program (SIIP), a national technical assistance initiative led by the nonprofit WES Global Talent Bridge. The new workforce publications were developed as part of that initiative, and MONA and TIA have also collaborated to provide in-person training to state and local workforce staff on use of the new publications. National Skills Coalition served as a technical assistance provider for the SIIP project, aiding in the development of the publications and participating in the training sessions this summer.

Note: A webinar about this new guide will be held on August 23, 2018. The webinar is being co-hosted by the International Rescue Committee, Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, and Workforce Matters. Register here.

A newly released publication is encouraging community-based organizations in California to actively participate in their local Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) planning process and otherwise engage with their local workforce boards.

The guide was authored by Erica Bouris of the nonprofit International Rescue Committee, which has offices in 26 US locations, including six in California. It was funded by the Grove Foundation and the Walter and Elise Haas Fund. Both foundations are part of the Immigrant Workforce Learning Community, a group co-convened by Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees and Workforce Matters.

Sections of the guide include:

What is WIOA planning and why does it matter?

Workforce system fundamentals: Understanding the local system and services

Who makes decisions about WIOA investments and services locally?

How much funding is at stake?

Where do CBOs fit into this?

How could your CBO engage in the WIOA planning process?

What obligations do Workforce Development Boards have in the WIOA planning process and service delivery?

The publication also provides examples of how California nonprofits have engaged with their local public workforce system, including by informing strategy development for Opportunity Youth, having a seat on the local workforce board, becoming a contracted service provider, winning competitive grants through the state workforce board’s Workforce Accelerator Fund, and participating in the state’s trailblazing English Language Learner (ELL) Navigator program.

Finally, nonprofits are provided with practical suggestions for how to participate, including by making public comments at workforce board meetings, sharing reports and data, inviting workforce staff to witness programs in action, and applying for a seat on the workforce board.

The guide complements more formal guidance previously released by the California Workforce Development Board. That guidance requires local workforce boards to take specific steps to ensure that a diverse range of stakeholders have opportunities to participate in WIOA planning.

In a tight labor market, companies across the United States are mulling how best to upskill their incumbent workforce to meet business needs. A particular challenge is adults with foundational skills gaps in reading, math, or spoken English. These kinds of skill gaps can prevent workers from even being able to participate in occupational training opportunities that can help them improve their earning prospects and better contribute to the business bottom line.

In Massachusetts, one effort is demonstrating the value of employer-informed training approaches that capitalize on strong public policies and partnerships with experienced training providers.

The Pre-Lean English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program was created by the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MassMEP) in collaboration with the nonprofit English for New Bostonians (ENB).

National Skills Coalition spoke with Jim Gusha of MassMEP, Mark Camus of Russelectric, and Franklin Peralta of English for New Bostonians to learn about the program and the policies that facilitate it.

Why was this an important issue for your organizations to tackle?

Jim: Just as context, MassMEP works primarily with small and medium sized manufacturers. We have three different areas of focus: operational excellence, business development and innovation, and workforce development. Often that means moving people from unemployment into a job – helping them build basic skills like math and reading, as well as specific skills like Computer Numeric Control (CNC) operation, metrology, etc. We have strong relationships with local higher education institutions as well as training facilities in our offices.

But now that unemployment level is so low, you’ve got under-employed people. Companies are crying for help. We’re looking to try and bridge that gap, to put together programming to reach those people and get them into the manufacturing workforce, or help them move up in their current roles. This project started off as a way to respond to a need that we were seeing among some of our manufacturers that have high numbers of immigrant workers [who needed to upskill].

Franklin: English for New Bostonians is a nonprofit, but we’re also an activist grantmaking organization that funds 23 programs serving more than 1,100 English learners each year. There is a huge business component to our work, because across Massachusetts, 1 in 5 workers is an immigrant. Many of them are still building their English skills: 439,000 working-age people in our state are English learners.

So businesses are really important partners for us, especially in the manufacturing sector, where a lot of immigrants in our state are employed. We engage with companies through our English Works campaign. We are always trying to think about how to help businesses make the connection between investing in English skills for their employees, and seeing greater productivity and improved safety outcomes.

We don’t just work with individual businesses; we also work with industry associations and groups like MassMEP. So it was natural for us to respond when Jim reached out.

Mark: We are a privately held, family-owned independent company. We have about 325-350 employees in two main facilities – in Massachusetts and Oklahoma. Our products help make sure that companies who can’t afford to lose power, don’t lose power. Like airports, banks, data centers, hospitals. It’s business to business.

It was MassMEP and AIM – Associated Industries of Massachusetts – who came to us initially. They reached out to us regarding a 2-year grant from the Massachusetts Workforce Training Fund Program (WTFP), covering all aspects of Lean manufacturing and related concepts. Based on the composition of our workforce, we identified that ESOL would need to be a component of the training.

What prompted you to think about designing a class specifically for English learners?

Jim: Previously, when MassMEP has done work in areas like Fall River, Lowell, or Boston [that have large immigrant populations] we’ve always had to tap into a [bilingual] person at the company to translate some of the concepts we’re trying to train on. It was cumbersome and I’m not really sure how effective it was. Employers want to have their [English learner] employees involved in training but sometimes they shy away from sending them because they’re not sure the message is getting through.

We were offering this Lean 101 8-hour introductory session. For that training, there was a lot of communication that was necessary: interaction with the instructor, lecture, and so on – and we were just not sure that the message was getting through to the participants who were English learners.

So then we thought about ESOL programming as kind of an on-ramp to the Lean training. In general, ESOL is a time commitment for a company – it can take 6 months to a year for a worker to gain a level in their language skills. While that’s great, it’s also time-consuming if what you want is just for someone to get up to speed enough to be able to understand Lean.

I bounced the idea of a Lean ESOL class off of Franklin and he liked the idea. ENB had a person who they recommended who could help us put it together, and that’s how this whole project got started.

Why were partnerships necessary for Russelectric to engage with this project?

Mark: The partnership with MassMEP is important because we’re a relatively small business. It’s not practical for us to design and launch entire training programs – that’s just not what we do. We do very much have top-down support for this project, from the CEO and CFO on down. I report directly to the CFO.

In terms of establishing our relationship with English for New Bostonians, I went to the annual awards breakfast that ENB puts on. It was a fantastic event -- very uplifting, inspirational, professionally run. So that made a good impression on me. They had good stories and examples of other companies they’d worked with.

Knowing that we were working with experienced partners helped convince us that this was a good use of company time and resources.

What does the class entail?

Mark: There are about 10 classes, at two hours per class. The classes are held from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., and employees get paid for their time. The reaction to the class has been quite favorable.

What are the key differences between Pre-Lean ESOL and a regular English class?

Jim:I can’t stress this enough – this is not a replacement for a traditional ESOL program. I don’t want companies to think that. [Rather], it’s a class that makes sense for workers to take before they start their Lean journey. It allows them to conceptually understand the key points of Lean, learn some specialized vocabulary, and participate in the improvement process.

What drives employers to work with you on training?

Jim: Over the years, MassMEP has served thousands of businesses in Massachusetts, of which 80 percent have fewer than 100 employees. These companies aren’t large enough to have [extensive] in-house training resources. MassMEP is an important resource for them because we can look at the training needs across a range of small companies and develop programs that meet their needs.

We’re very fortunate that our state is very supportive of this type of programming. Massachusetts has a fund that is paid for through a tax on unemployment insurance – the Workforce Training Fund. It allows employers to receive grants to support training for incumbent workers, with greater weight given to projects that boost skills and opportunities for lower-skill or low-wage workers. We often work with businesses to design training that can be supported by this fund.

How was this project funded?

Jim: As an organization, we’re set up as a nonprofit, and our funding comes from the US Department of Commerce, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and fee-for-service training programs. For this project, MassMEP funded all of the program development and paid for a curriculum developer to work with ENB.

It took us about a year to develop. It was constantly tweaked. We ran a pilot at a company that was interested in Lean training, but hesitant to begin it, because about 20% of their workforce was not fluent in English. After the ESOL pilot ended, production workers in the pilot class shared valuable feedback with us -- such advising us to use more videos – and were able to successfully move on to the regular Lean training with their native-born co-workers

Franklin: ESOL training for immigrant workers is one of the top priorities for the Workforce Training Fund; that, coupled with the fact that many of these limited English speaking employees are currently in low-skills positions, puts the Pre-Lean ESOL program in total alignment with the mission of the Fund to upskill our state workforce.

How are you measuring success? What’s next for this project?

Mark: At the worker level, it’s primarily observational. We are judging this as part of the overall Lean training. If we see ESOL participants being able to participate on equal footing with their [non-ESOL] coworkers, that’s a good sign.

As part of our broader Lean training activities, we do have some specific outcomes we have to report to the state about operational efficiencies and cost savings and so forth. We are also considering doing individual performance evaluations.

Jim: Since our initial pilot class, we have implemented the curriculum with two other companies, and it’s going well. We’re confident that we can do it well now – it’s not a pilot any more.

We’ve also gotten the support of the Massachusetts Secretary of Labor and the Commonwealth Corporation, which oversees the Workforce Training Fund, which is really helpful as we think about continuing to expand.

Franklin: In terms of measuring success, the first thing we do is to assess the current ESOL level of each potential student. At Russelectric, this evaluation determined that we needed to organize the employees in two groups, low-intermediate and intermediate. This helped the instructor to adjust the curriculum to better serve the two levels.

We also do a general evaluation at the end of the course. At Russelectric, 31 employees participated in the program, and they gave an average score of 4.6 out of 5 to the question: Can I use this knowledge at my job? The bottom line is, you can see how their newly gained confidence enables them to contribute their own ideas to their company’s Lean process improvement.

What lessons does this project have for other employers?

Mark: I would say that the Pre-Lean ESOL class worked because it was fully incorporated into everything else we were trying to do with Lean training. It wasn’t a stand-alone thing.

Plus, we know our workforce. Demographically, we’re diverse – our workers are Hispanic, Southeast Asian, Cape Verdean, and more. We knew that if the Lean training was going to succeed we had to make sure everyone was prepared to participate.

Thinking about other employers, I would say that if you’re a small business and you don’t have time to develop a whole new training curriculum, reaching out to partners like your state’s MEP and organizations like English for New Bostonians can help. This is what they specialize in, and that leaves us free to do our jobs.

What lessons does this project have for other Manufacturing Extension Partnerships?

Jim: Well, of course, while there are MEPs in all fifty states, their local contexts are different. But in general, I think this project demonstrates how good policies like the Workforce Training Fund can be combined with strong partners who have specialized expertise to help small and mid-sized businesses solve their training issues.

As I said, it’s a tight labor market. Everybody’s trying to find good workers. Sometimes the worker you need is already on your payroll – they just need a little boost, and training can provide that boost.

What lessons does this project have for adult education and workforce policy advocates?

Franklin: It doesn’t matter which end you start with – whether you are thinking about how to help immigrant workers build their skills, or how to help small businesses find the talent they need. In both cases, you can create a win-win. Partnerships are what make it possible.

And then, once you get a good partnership going, you have to tell the story! Policymakers need to hear about how important education and training investments are, especially for small businesses. Whether it is federal policymakers hearing about why MEPs are important, or state policymakers hearing about incumbent worker training funds, you have to show how their ideas are working in the real world. Everybody likes to hear a success story.

Two new fact sheets from National Skills Coalition highlight the important role that immigrant workers play in filling middle-skill jobs in Massachusetts and Missouri.

Both states have growing immigrant populations and a high demand for middle skill workers, along with ambitious goals for postsecondary attainment for their residents. Given these growing populations, immigrants will play a vital role in helping the states meet the demand for middle skill workers and respond to local industries’ talent needs.

In order for both states to achieve their postsecondary goals and to close their middle skill gaps, they will need to ensure that their career pipelines are inclusive of the many immigrants who are poised to benefit from investments in their skills: 24 percent of adult immigrants in Missouri and 22 percent in Massachusetts have not gone beyond high school in their education.

Massachusetts: A Large Immigrant Population is Part of the Middle-Skill Solution

Massachusetts is home to approximately 1.1 million immigrants, who comprise almost 17 percent of state residents. As a result, they play a strong role in Massachusetts’ labor market. This role will continue growing as the immigrant population increases; already, the share of immigrants in the state’s population has increased by 74 percent from 10 percent in 1990 to 17 percent today.

Massachusetts has set an ambitious goal for postsecondary attainment, aiming to increase the percentage of Commonwealth residents ages 25-34 years old with a college degree to 60 percent by 2020. This goal will help focus efforts towards middle-skill opportunities and engagement.

The demand for middle-skill workers is anticipated to remain strong in Massachusetts, with 41 percent of new job openings expected to be at the middle skill level. In order for Massachusetts to capitalize on this demand and draw on the full talents and abilities of their residents, the Bay State will need to invest in the skills of native-born and immigrant workers alike.

Missouri: Investing in Skills Training Will Help Meet the State’s Ambitious Postsecondary Goal

Missouri’s economy has a robust demand for middle skill workers, with more than half of all jobs (53 percent) being middle-skill occupations. This demand is expected to remain strong, with 48 percent of new job openings between 2014-2024 expected to be at the middle skill level. Yet only 46 percent of Missouri workers have been trained to the middle-skill level. This presents an opportunity for the state to invest in skill building for both native-born and immigrant workers to assist with meeting the middle skill demand.

Missouri has also set an aggressive goal for postsecondary attainment. The state aims to increase the percentage of residents with a degree or high-quality certificate from 46 percent to 60 percent by 2025. This ambitious attainment goal will help focus state policy and spending decisions towards middle-skill opportunities.

Immigrant workers represent an important element of the state’s labor market, and a potentially responsive pool of candidates for skill-building opportunities. Foreign born residents of the Show-Me State are much more likely to be of working age; over 80 percent are between the ages of 18-64 compared to 61 percent of native-born residents. Missouri immigrants also have a slightly higher labor-force participation rate, at 66 percent compared to 63 percent of native-born adults. Policymakers can help ensure that these new workers can fully contribute to Missouri’s economy by investing in proven policies that prepare people with the skills local businesses need.